Literature DB >> 33505178

Grading Sphero-Cylinder Spectacle Similarity.

Robert W Arnold1, Joshua S Beveridge1, Samuel J Martin1, Nathanael R Beveridge1, Elise J Metzger2, Kyle A Smith3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Portable autorefractors can estimate refractive error in remote locations, but sphero-cylinder comparison and donated-spectacle dispensing are not yet simple.
METHODS: Normal astigmats determined best corrected acuity, then degraded 1 logMAR (Grade A), 3 logMAR (Grade B), and 6 logMAR (Grade C) to determine limits of astigmatism axis and power at these levels. The cylindrical refraction was vector transformed with J0 on the abscissa and J45 on the ordinate.
RESULTS: Ten subjects produced multiple refractions at the interfaces of Grades A, B, and C representing ovals on the J0 and J45 coordinates. When rotated, the vertical axis represented 45° or 135°, the horizontal long axis was 1.6× the short axis. The size of the ovals positively correlated with cylinder power. Given a target refraction, the comparability of a candidate lens was demonstrated on our interactive database yielding a simple A, B, C, or worse grade for cylinder, spherical equivalent, and pupillary diameter. CONCLUSIONS/RELEVANCE: Inputting a remote autorefraction, pupillary diameter and age as target and a donated spectacle as the candidate with a "B" grade similarity would be expected to attain 20/40 acuity (3 logMAR degrade) if best corrected visual acuity was 20/20. This practical Excel database could facilitate widespread remote lay dispensing of the cylinder as well as spherical spectacles. The grade similarity can also compare refracting tools such as photoscreeners and hand-held autorefractors. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: NCT04297969.
© 2021 Arnold et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  donated recyled spectacles; forensic optometry; portable autorefraction; remote dispensing; vision screen validation

Year:  2021        PMID: 33505178      PMCID: PMC7829599          DOI: 10.2147/OPTO.S289770

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Optom (Auckl)        ISSN: 1179-2752


  16 in total

Review 1.  Revisions to tolerances in cylinder axis and in progressive addition lens power in ANSI Z80.1-2005.

Authors:  William L Brown
Journal:  Optometry       Date:  2006-07

2.  An assessment of recycled spectacles donated to a developing country.

Authors:  Jacqueline Ramke; Renee du Toit; Garry Brian
Journal:  Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.207

3.  Forensic application of optical correction.

Authors:  Randall S Collins; Gregory E Berg
Journal:  Optometry       Date:  2008-04

4.  Clinical applications of power vectors.

Authors:  Joseph M Miller
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.973

Review 5.  Clinical outcomes following the dispensing of ready-made and recycled spectacles: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Matthew G Pearce
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 2.742

6.  Used glasses versus ready-made spectacles for the treatment of refractive error.

Authors:  Thomas S Shane; Wei Shi; Joyce C Schiffman; Richard K Lee
Journal:  Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging       Date:  2012-03-01

7.  Performance of the 2WIN Photoscreener With "CR" Strabismus Estimation in High-Risk Patients.

Authors:  Stephanie L Arnold; Andrew W Arnold; Jacob H Sprano; Robert W Arnold
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 5.258

8.  Performance of Glow Fixation GoCheck Kids and 2WIN Photoscreeners and Retinomax to Uncover Hyperopia.

Authors:  Alexa H Levitt; Samuel J Martin; Robert W Arnold
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-08-10

9.  A Randomized Noninferiority Trial of Wearing Adjustable Glasses versus Standard and Ready-made Spectacles among Chinese Schoolchildren: Wearability and Evaluation of Adjustable Refraction III.

Authors:  Congyao Y Wang; Guoshan Zhang; Bobby Tang; Ling Jin; Wenyong Huang; Xiuqin Wang; Tingting Chen; Wenhui Zhu; Baixiang Xiao; Jun Wang; Zhongqiang Zhou; Zhizheng Tang; Yan Liang; Mabel Crescioni; David Wilson; Helen McAneney; Joshua D Silver; Bruce Moore; Nathan Congdon
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 12.079

10.  A solution to minimum sample size for regressions.

Authors:  David G Jenkins; Pedro F Quintana-Ascencio
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  2 in total

1.  Ellipsoid Spectacle Comparison of Plusoptix, Retinomax and 2WIN Autorefractors.

Authors:  Robert W Arnold; Samuel J Martin; Joshua R Beveridge; Andrew W Arnold; Stephanie L Arnold; Nathanael R Beveridge; Kyle A Smith
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-08-30

2.  Comparative Validation of PlusoptiX and AI-Optic Photoscreeners in Children with High Amblyopia Risk Factor Prevalence.

Authors:  Robert W Arnold
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2022-08-16
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.